[DeltaElite]

I do not condone police abuse of power or of people.

So many here seem to think things are getting worse, far from it, they are getting better.

Let's jump in the "Wayback Machine" with Mr Peabody and Sherman and go back to 1952.

Back in 1952, citizens were routinely beaten and held without charges and nothing was done to stop it.
This was the era of "McCarthyism" and J Edgar Hoover, civil rights were not respected on a local or federal level.
Also, street justice was the norm, cops kicked the crap out of people, no due process, no judge, no jury, no trial of any kind.
Many confessions were coerced, if not beaten out of the suspect, remember the "Miranda" ruling didn't come around til the 1960's.
No Black man got a fair trial in the 50's, racism was accepted as the norm.
Police shootings rarely resulted in criminal or civil litigation against the police, even when blatantly wrong.
Fleeing felony suspects were routinely shot.

I could list many more wrongs from that era, but I think you get the point.

While there are many wrongs today, there are fewer than 50 years ago.
We need to strive to lessen and hopefully eliminate all abuses of power and people.
Things are better than in the past, but much improvement is still needed.
I wish us God Speed.

Just my 2 cents, ok maybe 3 cents. ;)

[KP95DAO]

Yeah , those were the bad old days. Back then your kids could go to the other side of the city and you stood a very good chance of seeing them in time for supper that day; not in a body bag the next.

You could go for a walk in the park without fear of an encounter with a two legged predator. You could stop to offer assistance to another motorist without fear of ending up ------ you fill in the blank. You could leave your domicile's doors unlocked with the certitude that your stuff would be there when you got back. The punk who was going to school just to have a place to be disruptive was set right or set aside so the rest who were there to learn, could.

I don't know, maybe it's just me, but I wouldn't mind have a great part of those "good old days" back again.

[DeltaElite]

LOL
I am quite grounded on Earth.
I agree, people were safer from criminals back then, but the Govt was more oppressive.
Which is worse? Depends on who is kicking your arse at the time. :neener:

Besides, this thread is about abuse by police.
Are you condoning the "old ways" of the "good old days" to make the streets safer?

Civil rights be damned.
The ends justify the means and all that. :rolleyes:

[Croyance]

KP95DAO, back then, when a priest molested a kid, the family covered it up.
Rape was a woman's fault, unless a black man raped a white woman.
Politicians were thought to be honest, when everything was rigged behind closed doors.
Kickbacks and coverups were normal - the public just kept their heads in the sand.
Peace at the price of police brutality is not worth it. And beating and torturing a confession out of an innocent person is wrong, even if it lets you keep your door unlocked.

[KP95DAO]

" Back then, when a priest molested a kid, the family covered it up.
Rape was a woman's fault, unless a black man raped a white woman.
Politicians were thought to be honest, when everything was rigged behind closed doors.
Kickbacks and coverups were normal - the public just kept their heads in the sand."

I'm waiting for you to tell me something has changed about the above.
I don't believe the police acted in a worse manner back then with the possible exception of police (I would say "white" police but that would be redundant) in the south on their actions towards "blacks."
The fact remains that society was safer back then, for whites and blacks.

[2nd Amendment]

Citing a middle ground. Wow.

Things were better. They started to improve in the 60's in a lot of ways. The 70's, regarding police were a definite im[provement and the early to mid 80's weren't bad. But somewhere in the late 80's we began to see the militarization of police. In the 90's this took hold and the slide began.

Today the abuse is different, but it's there. And it's spreading. The local example I made elsewhere is a very good one. We have twice as many cops, twice as much equipment, they're heavier armed and all in a town where the popultion is actually somewhat smaller and the crime level has remained constant or decreased, except for meth labs. The cops are younger, they know less about Rights and promotion is more based on connections than ever.

Lastly, the government was more oppressive? Seriously, you can't really think that? Government at all levels meddles far more today than at any time in our history. It's more standardized, more clinical, but far more actually oppressive.

[DeltaElite]

Good points 2A.
The oppression may have taken on different forms, but a black man can walk down most streets now without getting harrassed by the cops and won't get arrested for using the wrong drinking fountain, sitting in the wrong seat in a diner, etc.

Yet govt oppression has taken on different forms. Must ponder this more, hmmmmmmmmm.

This may prove to be a very interesting thread.

Oh, and as far as militarizaion.
We have a SWAT team and it is overused, IMHO.
However, I still go on calls against a perp with a rifle, armed with a 9mm and a 12ga.
I sure wish some militarization would come my way, I need a darn rifle, just to stay even nowadays.:banghead:

[Cal4D4]

Found a couple cents, wanna play also.

Back in the '50s these police abuse threads woulda been laughed off by the vast majority. Early '60s also. Populace started to be radicalized in mid to late '60s by many factors. Alot of fat and sassy kids started to think about civil rights, conflicts about our international position on some stuff and I don't know what. Black Panthers represented the radical minority and things started to get strange. Police exerted a strong presence and the Nat'l Guard killed some disobedient youth. That brought in the older group because now it was their kids at risk, not just minorities. Alot of tension was removed when VN came to an end. Groups like the SLA and Black Panthers showed the dangers of domestic terror and the police/gov't claimed new powers to help protect the people. Black Panthers self destructed from within and PD burned the SLA out. Immediately the War on Drugs was started and I believe it was Nixon's era when the "no knock" and gov't monitoring of bank accts started. Never heard about a "no knock" - it was sorta promised to only be used in the pursuit of the Drug Lords - until much later. Gov't put police on the commission system with property seizures getting bolder and bolder until some curbs in the late '90s. Once again the populace is slowly getting more and more radicalized, possibly as more than just a distant minority is affected. Bubba's dog gets wasted as collateral damage, a gun afficionado is blasted in his living room without crime, and more people know someone victimized by badge heavy police procedure. Growing segments of the populace are more and more likely to radicalize. We have a greater percent of our population incarcerated than any country in the world ever. Illegals are urged to empower by their foreign gov't, middle America has a family member trampled in the WO(s)D and the police are making their will known by policies such as "we have the power to use up to lethal force on non-compliant citizens" as voiced elsewhere. This is pure militarization. If you doubt the problems, do jury duty. Sat on several juicy cases and in deliberations the faith in the PD shown by upper whites was contrasted sharply by ANY minority there of any class. Gov't is playing the race card for political gain and this can easily backfire. One percent scofflaw is a criminal class, ten percent is a revolution.
Plenty more to say, but 2 cents only takes you so far.

[Morgan]

Cal4D4 sez:we have the power to use up to lethal force on non-compliant citizens Whoa, nellie... That was suspects, not citizens, and these are suspects that are resisting for the use of force and are a lethal threat for use of lethal force.

Don't misquote me or use my words out of context, please.

[ojibweindian]

Doesn't take much to be a "suspect" nowdays. And aren't "suspects" still citizens with Constitutional rights until PROVEN guilty?

Or should we just appease the "law and order" people and get rid of that pesky, trivial little thing known as evidence.

[Coronach]

Doesn't take much to be a "suspect" nowdays. And aren't "suspects" still citizens with Constitutional rights until PROVEN guilty?

Or should we just appease the "law and order" people and get rid of that pesky, trivial little thing known as evidence.Yes, they are still citizens with constitutional rights until proven guilty, but this does not mean that if someone is, for instance, armed and resisting arrest, that I have to convene a jury trial between the time I break leather and the time that I shoot at them in an effort to stop their violent and threatening actions. However, I fully expect the propriety of my actions to be investigated by my chain of command, the city prosecutor, and possibly a grand jury.

Mike

[Cal4D4]

Understand the clarification Morgan, and I apologize. Your quote was just the first most blatant that popped in. I now understand you are holding it to a higher test, as well as Coronach's posting in between. Many quotes and many examples other than yours, but I do apologize.

[Morgan]

Cal - thank you. The point is, I'm on your side.

Ojibweindian - it's reasonable suspicion one needs to make a suspect. Evidence is required for the suspicion to be reasonable.

[Porter Rockwell]

Senator McCarthy has been vindicated recently, and BTW fighting communism WAS one this countries agendas, well sort of.
DE, all one needs to counter your statement re "better now" is tune in the many COPS reruns on the BOOB tube to see blatant misude of police powers up to and including murder by LEO.
As an aside, I've lived in heavily enforced communities where traffic accidents were routinely caused by the paranoid people watching the cruiser instead of traffic.
I'm not really sure how minority rights squeezed in, I lived through the fifties and saw no black crime at all when compared to any city USA. There was no war against drugs and no inner city, illegal drugs (heroin-weed-speed) was cheap and nobody cared whether "that side" of town got high, drag raced, engaged in fisticuffs etc that are now activities LEO view as almost felony offences.

[2nd Amendment]

I don't know if McCarthy has so much been "vindicated" as several decades of concerted leftist Spin has been debunked. He wasn't a monster and the hearings weren't a kangaroo court. He was also no saint and the hearings probably weren't anywhere near what they should or could have been. Regardless, dropping his name as some sort of curse doesn't carry any weight to anyone who has been curious enough to learn the facts these days.

I've mentioned before my view on the state of blacks today vs the "terrible 50's". As far as I can see all they've done is trade one form of oppression for another.

[ojibweindian]

"We are a nation of laws."

Okay, let's run with this for a sec.

Jim Crow laws. Would you enforce them?

Segregatiion laws. You were okay with them?

Thoreau, King, and Gahndi realized that not all laws are conscienable (sp?).

[benewton]

I don't really do theory all that well, though I guess my job requires that I appear to do so. So I will only offer a couple of observations.

I was born I '52, and lived on Cape Cod, the the PRM.

I was out, once past the age of crawling, all day, every day, bike, paper route, friends, etc, and, while I know of perverts about the same way anyone would below puberty, never really worried.

Nor was I alone: a dumb move 8 miles from home would be reported to my mother a good half hour before I got there, no matter how hard I raced
that bike!

School WAS work, and failure wasn't rewarded, but was instead, feared. And that included the scouts: you always wanted to do well...

And I'm not going to explain about isolation for all of us (Scarlet Fever), or the three or four mile walk to apply for welfare: the current military pay gap isn't even close to new, 'cause while my father played AF....

Not minority, and won't be, except for a stint under a black commander while playing Army (No promotions for whites, but you still got to do the jobs while his race got the pay: a great deal!), and so probably can't comment on your state of affairs.

Given a choice, had I children, I'd take the 50's with no questions asked!

Stuck in this time zone, thankfully without children, it's dress with the side arm, keep a low profile, and hope that I can monitor, rather than be a part of, the current breakdown.

Still, it's not nice to have to stand aside and watch all of the freedoms that were part of our past be trashed. Sure, you have "Constitutional rights", unless, of course, you're determined to be supporting, or part of, or, simply, somebody, hopefully, since I, too, have an enemies list, a federal employee decides that you don't. At which point in time you become an "unlawful combatant", or some such, and so may drop off the face of the earth.

Truth be told, I'm getting to the point where I'm really thinking it's time too shoot the bastards.

[DeltaElite]

Ok, I guess things are worse now. :rolleyes:

All I know is that if a 1950's cop pulled the crap today that he did then, he would be indicted on so many charges it would make his head spin.

It comforts some people to believe that things are worse, it soothes their paranoid ideations of our govt and society in general. ;)

Anyway, I have said what I believe, things need to be better, but they are not nearly as bad as even a decade ago or five decades ago.
But hey what do I know, I only work there. :neener:

[DeltaElite]

Oooops, double tap.

[Zander]

Howdy, DE...

This may prove to be a very interesting thread.Agreed. Let's see if we can keep it alive. ;)

It's tough to compare civilian law enforcement today with that of a half-century ago, but perhaps it's fair to say that the nature of LEO abuse has changed radically.

Two things come to mind:

1. Militarization of CLE is increasingly dangerous as it only enhances the very prominent trend of us v. them;

2. The opportunity to acquire a seemingly endless supply of our tax dollars "granted" from the fed.gov is predicated on CLE adopting any number of federal policies and procedures. See #1...

[DeltaElite]

Hey Zander,
My initial viewpoint was of the abuse on an individual basis.
Not the militarization angle.
I agree the militarization has become prevelant, but since I still have the equipment that a cop carried 50 years ago, militarization hasn't impacted me as a patrol officer.

I want a patrol rifle, at least give me the option of being even when I go to a perp with a rifle in his paws. Heck, I am better off ramming him with my Crown Vic, than trying to engage him with a 9mm or a 12ga. I can't use slug for my shotgun.

Unfortunately the "Us vs Them" is a vicious circle.
Both sides seem to have a worsening attitude of the other and unless it is stopped, it will prove disasterous.
I believe it also varies from dept to dept. My dept is not progressive by modern Le standards, or 1880's standards for that matter. :p
I believe we still interact very well with our community and I hope it stays that way, I don't want to work as an occupying army like some city pd's do.
You should see the suprised look on peoples faces when I tell them not to call me Ofc Elite, but to call me by my first name, Delta. (Names have been changed to protect the paranoid. ;) )
It is simply amazing how much better you can interact with anyone, suspects included when you are a person with a name and not just Ofc Soandso.

What was my point? I dunno, but it makes sense to me. :neener:

[fastbolt]

Amazing how this very subject comes up at work every once in a while ... Generally after someone does something stupid, though.

I think that we're under the spotlight more than ever before, media-wise ...

I also think that we're seeing some incredibly stupid, not to mention illegal, actions on the part of a very small number of folks that shouldn't be wearing badges ...

These 2 circumstances can certainly combine to produce some "elevated" awareness and focused attention ...

Anybody else amazed and perplexed at the maturity, especially the lack of it, of some of the folks we're hiring in recent years?

Of course, I remember when there were up to 1,000 applicants for a single position. Now, some of our agencies are lucky if we're able to get 25 applications for 1-5 positions ... Anybody else see a connection with what we're able to choose among for hiring purposes?

Then, there's the "rumor" of loosened standards at both the academy and FTO program level ...

We're not responsible for the ills of our society, but we're certainly being held responsible for curtailing the criminal "excesses" and "indescretions" commited by certain elements within our society, and it's simply not an easy job ... but it's not made any easier when a small element within our own ranks is discovered to be no better than the criminals we're tasked with apprehending ... you know?

We can tell the public that these bad elements are a statistically miniscule minority all we want, and it's even true. However, once the public loses their trust in us, I'm not sure how easily we can win it back ...

I ALWAYS believed the cops when I was a youngster. They WERE the good guys.

Anybody want to argue that juries automatically believe all cops in the courtroom anymore, let alone that we're automatically believed to be the good guys & girls? Anybody want to argue that the public's hesitation is completely unfounded, considering some of the problems we've seen within our ranks?

I'd prefer not to get involved in the other topics of this thread at this time ... :what:

I really want to retire ... :banghead:

[DeltaElite]

Well said Fastbolt, on all topics.
I too want to retire. sighhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

[LawDog]

"Militarization of law enforcement", while a catchy phrase, is nothing new. Police are no more militarized now, than they have been in the past.

Todays new breed of peace officer knowing less about the Constitution and legal rights than the old breed is also incorrect.

The man who trained me to be a Peace Officer never saw a book of laws his first year as an officer. Yes, I said year. His first day on the job, he was issued a flashlight and a pistol and sent out to patrol the street by himself. He couldn't have told you what or where the Penal Code was to save his life.

This was common practice up until just recently.

The first sheriff I worked under went to a two-week Academy. The Constitution was never covered during his Academy, and the only mention of it was to tell the students not to worry about it, it didn't apply to local officers.

This also was common practice.

'Rufe' Jordan, Sheriff of Gray County, used to hang people on a bar in his jail elevator and beat them mercilessly on the trip upstairs. Evryone knew about it, and no one seemed to think anything of it.

From the days of the old West until the '60's vagrants and drug abusers were routinely beaten senseless and deposited on train cars with the admonishment not to appear in the county/city again.

Police officers administering brutal beatings for a perceived lack of respect on the part of citizens was accepted and tolerated by society.

Interrogation by means of rubber hoses, leather gloves and other impact items could have been considered routine until lately.

IF there was an investigation of an officer shooting, it was just Frank asking Bob if he thought he really needed to shoot that old boy. No citizen review board.

Bonnie and Clyde were gunned down from ambush - tactics that would have readers of this Forum up in arms if it had happened today. Dillenger likewise was ambushed.

Today I had a citizen spit at me because he was upset about being booked into jail. In the Good Old Days people harken to, it would have been required for me to beat him senseless.

Those "old officers" who "don't like the new breed of officers" don't like me. The retired officer who saw the man spit at me thinks I molly-coddle my suspects simply because I didn't knock the man's teeth out of his head for the transgression of spitting at me.

*sigh*

These days, I pretty much tune out anyone who starts talking to me about how "the old cops don't like the new breed of cops". These people don't ever hear the war stories that the "old cops" only tell to other cops.

People who go on about the dislike of the "old cops" towards the New Breed never sat down over coffee and heard the "old cops" tell stories about the Good Old Days.

LawDog

[DeltaElite]

Lawdog. Bravo, bravo. :D

Seems the passing of time has changed peoples memories of just how brutal the "good ole days" were.

[2nd Amendment]

One problem, LawDog. The Constitution, BoR and the idea, theory and history of Rights were covered in school, from early grade school on. Today they are, emphatically, not. So while a cop of 40 years ago may not have had specific job training on the issue he certainly had it in his education as a Citizen.

On militarization. Observation and comparison proves you wrong. Please show me a cop of 30 years ago who had an AR type rifle, body armor plus quite possibly a ninja suit, mask, helmet, etc. 1 in 50? 1 in 100? 99% of those in very large metro areas? Even more than that? How many active SWAT teams were there? How many were trained by the military, or at least utilized military equipment and techniques?

Today all I have to do is go up town to find a half dozen squad cars with this sort of equipment. Never been used, but they've been trained, and the state and/or fed has bought it for them. State boys? Same. And the younger ones have a mentality where they want to use it because, as mentioned above, they don't have the slightest grasp of Rights or history or Citizenship.

Sorry but the militarization has increased, is increasing and is observable. I can quantify it in my lifetime at the local, county and state level. So is the ignorance of the newest officers. The latter isn't necessarily a fault of any dept. so much as a fault of our society and education system, but it still has its' repercussions in interactions between cops and Citizens.

[DeltaElite]

2A,
Hello again, it may be that way where you are, but today we had a man with a gun held up in his house and out of 100+ patrol officers city wide, no "long gun" aka patrol rifle was available.
We use them to cover the location and keep the suspect from going mobile. A precision weapon has its place from time to time.
Just ask the officers involved in the North Hollywood Shootout, they sure needed one.

Heck, Old West Sheriffs carried lever actions, I would even take one of those in my saddlebag. ;)

So while some agencies may be "militarized", mine sure aint.

Oh and wearing armor is not "militarization", it's not wanting bullet holes in ya. ;)

I wonder if there is an odd correlation between the failure of the education system and the "militarization" of Le.

[labgrade]

DeltaElite's sig line:
"I don't trust my Govt, hell I work for them, I should know.
I must strive to defeat my enemy, without becoming just like them."

I could not agree more, but you still posit, in later posts that you'll somehow support all this nonsense.

" ... things need to be better, but they are not nearly as bad as even a decade ago or five decades ago."

Disputable, but nonetheless. "things are bad" & right now.

Why perpetuate it? Why even buy into their falicy that they even have any authority over us?

Aren't the laws that they want you to enforce so much BS to begin with?

Consider this:

A few "suits" (legislature) put their heads together & decide that "something needs to be done." It is & it becomes A Law. & because these idiots have reached a legal consensus, you LEOs go out & enforce it.

It's now "law" & therefore you blindly go about "your bizness?"

Huh!?

We've seen it time & time again that y'all LEO-types are questioning the thought process (as if!) of our legislators, but when this same codification into law becomes a reality, you'll "just enforce it?"

Because it's (now) "The Law?"

You all knew it was wrong before, during the legislative process, but now, since it has the "force of ..." (words do escape me here) ... the force of it being codified, you would (perhaps) shoot me, detain me, do a no-knock on my house & perhaps shoot my children (accidentally, or not) to enforce this same law that you always knew was a bad thing & were already against?

Now it's law, & you will attempt to (maybe) kill me to enforce this same thing you always knew to be bad?

But you'll do this beause it's your job to enforce The Peace?

You know it's wrong now - you always did - but still, because it's The Law & you are sworn to uphold the law (that's your job), you will do all these things to us ....

Howz that again?

[DeltaElite]

Labgrade,
Hello.

Maybe I should resign and leave Le to the ones who will follow blindly and trust that the govt is always right.
Maybe it serves no purpose to have someone like me on the inside who educates other officers on how people should be treated.
Maybe I should leave Le to the abusive cops of old.
Maybe I should quit telling other cops how useless the WoD is.

EUREEKA, that's it. I should resign and just go to internet message boards and whine about Le, instead of working to change it from within. :rolleyes:
Since the outsiders are having such an impact on the practice and mindset of Le. :rolleyes:

Just because I don't care for all the laws, doesn't mean I disagree with them all. Without law, the animal that is man would run amock. Heck, it seems to be running amock anyway.
I believe that govt has it's place, but that it needs to be changed dramatically.

I do nothing blindly, so inferring that I do shows that you are conveniently lumping me in with all others that you don't approve of to simplify your thought processes.
Grouping people only serves to dehumanize them and make them easier to vilify.

None are so blind, as those that will not see.

Even though we disagree and have a different method to enact change within the system, who is to say who will be more successful in the end? Only time will tell.

[LawDog]

On militarization. Observation and comparison proves you wrong.

Really? Show me a state or local law enforcement agency in the United States at this time militarized to the extent that the Texas Rangers were 150+ years ago - well before the 'modern militarization'.

The first State Police Agency, the Pennsylvania State Police organized in 1905 (again, well before 'modern militarization'), used a military rank structure - line officers were 'Privates' - and military rank insignia, it based its uniforms on military uniforms, located its schools on military reservations, organized into 'Troops' and 'Barracks', received both issue weapons and training from the military, officers - excuse me - Privates signed up for two year periods (called enlistments) ... you get the idea.

And the Pennsylvania State Police is rather proud of the fact that it is the model for most of the State Police agencies in the United States.

Sir Robert Peel, considered the Father of Modern Police, favoured the quasi-military model for his new police. He felt the military approach led to better-discliplined officers.

LawDog

[DeltaElite]

Lawdog,
It seems that the use of better weapons and armor to help ensure our success and survival is offensive to some and falls within the "militarization" stigma.

After all, when I went to that disturbance call last week (nobody bothered to mention they heard gunshots) and found spent 7.62x39 cartridges in the driveway and front yard, I sure didn't need a rifle or armor.
No need at all for a weapon of equal capability.

Fortunately the drug dealers didn't want to kill me or my pals, they had only wanted to spray the car of someone that they were angry at. They were arrested for the aggravated assault they committed.
If they had chosen to come out shooting, we would have been at a horrible disadvantage.
So see, I don't need the weapons and armor that so offend the sensibilities of those who think we are overly "militarized".
I can survive on good looks and luck alone. :rolleyes:

[labgrade]

Delta,

You're missing the whole point.

I don't mind you staying alive & being safe. What I mind is what you're doing.

You got no business in it in the first place.

Your own sig line:

"I don't trust my Govt, hell I work for them, I should know.
I must strive to defeat my enemy, without becoming just like them."

Some suits got together & decided that "this is a good thing," The Guv signed off & viola, we have a law.

Unless ruled unconstitutional, it's good to go & you guys can & do.

Just fer grins, I'd betcha that 90% of the laws you enforce aren't even legal - debateable & maybe another thread, maybe here? What do I know?

Yeah, they're "law," but "legal?"

It's crap.

You have no more business enforcing much of what you do as I have to come into your own home & telling your wife how clean her kitchen is.

You know it, & I know it.

& when you attempt to enforce unjust laws, you are guilty of police abuse - simply because you have no business there in the first place.

Codified, or not.

[DeltaElite]

Labgrade,
In your opinion most of the laws I enforce are unconstitutional.
I guess that makes me lucky you are not in a position of power and that very few people share your opinion.

Since most everything I do is an abuse of power, I guess there is no reason to further communicate with you, since nothing short of my resignation would appease you. :D

You can believe all you want that I know you are right. :rolleyes:
I will continue to "abuse" my power and do what I believe is best for our society.

I am sorry that our society is too confining for you, I wish you luck in whatever you do and I hope your son recovers fully.

[labgrade]

"In your opinion most of the laws I enforce are unconstitutional.
I guess that makes me lucky you are not in a position of power and that very few people share your opinion."

You may really be surprised at how easily we govern ourselves without the meddling of somebody else.

B'lieve it or not, we are all doing that everyday - except for the very few hard-core nut-jobs that don't obey any of our laws anyway - mostly.

My society is no more confining than I will allow it to be.

Frankly, I don't abuse any of its stupid laws in the first place. Easily enough, I already "confine" myself soley through just being a "good guy."

I am not an idiot, I will not persue my own gleeful pleasures to any extent that it could ever cause harm to another. My clock's just not wound that way.

God dumped The Big Ten on Moses & I kinda figured that was overboard somehow as the Golden Rule already covered every bit of that.

Basically: love your neighbor as yourself & do no harm.

I could go a bit more philosophical, but what would be the point?

You seem to think me a nut solely because I see a deep suspicion of those in your profession. I have reasons to hold these beliefs.

(BTW, for some reason or 'nother, I'm not getting any e-mails telling me there's a repy to any THR posts .... & 1/2 of what I'm seeing now wasn't "posted" before - we got a software glitch at my end at the least & seriously I ain't even drunk)

Like I mentioned. We could exchange #s & settle so much of what we could likely never "settle" through typing.

I'm really on your side & 10:1, I'd betcha you're on mine.

10 minutes over the phone, a polite chat & we'd have this thing settled.

& thanks about Shane, Sir. We're holding tight. A tough road right about now.

[Byron Quick]

I can see things from the different viewpoints brought to this discussion. The different branches of my family include rich and poor. Family history can remember when justice in the South went to rich and the poor could forget about it. Like I said, from both sides.

Oh, the comment about Southern police and blacks...LOL. You need to talk to some Northern blacks about Northern police and their "enlightened" treatment of blacks during the first half of the 20th century.


Yeah, there were problems in the fifties and some of those are much better now. Some are unchanged. There are also new problems.

[bogie]

I think what folks are most concerned about isn't that Ossifer Friday has an M-16 in his car's trunk.

It's that Ossifer Friday has been showing an increasing propensity to take it out and play with it. Whether it's needed or not.

My perception of policing is that it has gone from a largely informal "protect the taxpayers and voters, and don't worry about whose head you gotta bust" to a very strictly regimented situation in which the officers are becoming more and more militarized.

It's REALLY interesting to go in my local supermarket, and get the evil eye from one of the local cops. You know what? I stare back. Only time one of 'em escalated the situation, and was on his way over to teach me who was boss, one of the folks who work there noticed me (without seeing the cop), and walked over and said howdy...

And don't even get me started on the kids who do their "training" gratis at our club - Evil eye to members, spinning tires and slinging gravel in the parking lot, etc...